Jump to content

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.176.222.19 (talk) at 04:28, 21 July 2012 (→Category: White People). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Occupy Wallstreet Member

James Holmes was/is a member of the Colorado Occupy Wallstreet movement, specifically the radical "Black Block" group. He had been a member of the San Diego Occupy movement but left as they were "not radical enough." This has been reported by several media outlets and in the Holmes own statements to police (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1929835/pg1). He was upset that the Batman movie portrayed the Occupy movement in a negative way.

The national Occupy Wallstreet group has confirmed his membership on their webpage (http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-black-bloc-member-james-holmes-shoots-up-au/).--Hilighter12345 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bloc is a part of the Occupy movement. It has existed long before Occupy. The link is also dead.AndrewK760 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block bloc is not an organization, and is therefore not a "part" of any group. Obviously, it has existed as a tactic for some time, but claiming that someone is a member of the "Black Bloc" is absurd, and similar to saying that someone who is protesting is a member of the "radical Slogan Chanters" group. This is also a common mistake made in the media, and should not be repeated here even if Mr. Holmes is proven to have been a violent protester of some sort. siafu (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd link you posted confirms it from what I can read, it also looks like a reliable source of information, at least at first glance. JeffreyW75 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I watched the movie this morning and the association of Gotham's villains with Occupy Wallstreet is about as strong as Hussein's connections with 911. That is to say, there isn't one. If James Holmes told police that he felt the movie portrayed the movement in a negative light, then he truly is unhinged from reality. Pjk645 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not a reliable source. All of this is from this blog, which is clearly (from its own text) doing speculation. The OWS page is dead now, but if you google that URL, you can see a cached copoy of the text, which is the same text as in my link here, crossposted http://cheatersflorida.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/update-occupy-black-bloc-member-james-e-holmes-shoots-up-aurora-co-movie-theater-killing-12-and-wounding-50/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The GodLikeProductions link is a legitimate source.AndrewK760 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GodLikeProductions is a conspiracy website, not sure if serious? --Rarian rakista (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original was from cheatersflorida (aka Bill Warner the "private investigator"). I commented on this blog post a few hours ago, saying "Interesting. You not only have a misleading title, and you grasp at no facts whatsoever to back up your claim. Also, you include pictures which had nothing to do with said incident, or with Holmes." He subsequently deleted my comment, and closed them. In regards to the two places where this was cross-posted, my guess is that he did this, and tried putting it here to sort of make it seem "legitimate". I have no proof on that, but needless to say the text itself makes it not worthy of inclusion as it is not based on fact. Further, it is shameful that Bill Warner would make something like this up, so that he may capitalize on a tragedy. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Here is also 2012 Denver shootings article. --Stryn (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article at this title because I didn't notice that it had already been created elsewhere. Since the other article was created first, I've deleted mine and moved the pre-existing article (2012 Denver shootings) here (2012 Aurora movie theater shooting), which I think is a better title, although probably not the perfect title. Hopefully I haven't made it too confusing, but I was trying to avoid a situation where we have two or three different articles about the same subject. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.63 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Should the article really say "he was an active member of his local church"? We have no idea when this was from. It was from a retired neighbor in his San Diego community. I don't see he was a part of a church while he was in Colorado, and thus we have no information he was an "active" member of a "local" as in Aurora church.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/colorado-shooting-suspect-really-smart-friend-says.html

Title

I believe the appropriate name is "2012 Aurora shooting" (singular), corresponding to something like "2011 Tucson shooting", which was also a single event, not like "Toulouse and Montauban shootings", which was a series of three shootings. DillonLarson (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, by the way - my semi-protection of this page was to stop IP nonsense but I think the title should be singular, it would be constructive if people stopped edit warring over it and discussed, though. - filelakeshoe 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare 2012 Tulsa shootings. Mephtalk 10:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, please don't move articles by copying and pasting content. Mephtalk 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article at 2012 Aurora shooting. one needs redirecting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Aurora shooting or Denver shooting is more accurate than shootings. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be 2012 Aurora shooting, and redirected this page to that one. Can we please have some agreement on this? Robofish (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any change of title should be accomplished with a move, not with a redirect to a mostly copy/pasted version of the original. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no concensus over 'shooting' and 'shootings' among similar articles, I'd suggest deferring to whatever title was originally given when first created: [2]. Mephtalk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The singular should be more appropriate.--Coekon (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Aurora shootings is the older article by five minutes, so let's keep it at that for now. I still think the singular title is more logical though. Robofish (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this is main article but at wrong title. it should be shooting, but i do think it worth considering if this should be Aurora or Denver. The international media is heavily referring to this as Denver. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But domestic media is referring as Aurora, such as CNN. In my personal opinion, the domestic media shall prevail.--Coekon (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no convention let's leave it here for now - I merged over the extra section + stub cats you added from the other article, when more media usage comes out we can move it if necessary over one of the other redirects. - filelakeshoe 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the plurality is accurate nomenclature. While there is a convention on WP:PLURAL for adopting the singular, it's also the case that 'shooting' denotes an instance of a shooting, rather than multiple shootings, and hence the singular fails to signify properly: [3]. Mephtalk 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that while the media may be using 'Denver', that's actually inaccurate - Aurora, Colorado is a separate municipality, although it is part of the broader Denver metropolitan area. Robofish (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Aurora shootings article (which began as 2012 Denver shootings) was created 42 minutes before 2012 Aurora shooting, not five. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that I'm glad it was moved back to shootings so quickly. Massacre is an emotive word and not appropriate here. Douglasi (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre would be appropriate if that was what people were calling it (Srebrenica massacre) but otherwise, yes, I agree. - filelakeshoe 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What people? The ones on wikipedia? Just 'cause CNN has it as a headline doesn't mean that it's not a sensational word. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that a major news outlet called is such means it's designed solely to attract clicks and views. It should stay shooting and be part of the canonical Spree Shooting entry.--Possum4all (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different media organisations saying shooting.. . Daily Telegraph, BBC, CNN, Fox, Sky news, Guardian, CBS, ABC News, NBC news. The overwhelming majority of sources are saying shooting not "shootings", which implies more than one incident. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC) few more.. Reuters, AFP , MSN, AP BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just change it to shooting and create a redirect for shootings.. ?? Wouldn't it make since to adjust it sooner then later and then we can all just stop talking about the titleMantion (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to name the article "2012 Aurora Theater Shooting" or "2012 Aurora Theater Massacre?" 75.57.176.68 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for Virginia Tech's Tragedy, and still would, that the term "massacre" is biased / loaded and shouldn't be used for spree shootings of this nature. --Possum4all (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. It's a sensational word and shouldn't be part of a reference entry here. Just as it shouldn't be part of the Virginia Tech title. --Possum4all (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'm not sure how "tragedy" is any better than using "massacre." But I have taken care of major alternate titles by creating the following redirects: Colorado theater massacre, Colorado theater shooting, Aurora, Colorado theater massacre and Aurora, Colorado theater shooting. It took me several minutes to find this article under its current title -- 2012 Aurora shooting. And although it should have dawned on me that it was using such a title given my experience with the 2011 Tucson shooting article, I had to click on Aurora, Colorado to find this article. So these redirects should help the majority of our readers who will be searching this case under one of its more WP:COMMONAMES. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a clearer fuller wording for the article name would be "2012 Aurora shooting massacre" rather than just "shooting" because "shooting" alone doesn't make clear enough that it was not just a simple one or two gunshot shooting. But massive. Just my opinion. the name of article should be enhanced a bit. Per logic and facts, and thoroughness and clarity. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman movie massacre

Some news sources are referring this event to the Batman Movie Shooting or Batman Movie Massacre. We, in Wikipedia, should not make up our own name. That is original research and prohibited. Auchansa (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Gunman" is sexist language. Say "armed individual" or "person with a gun." If the person is unknown, don't say "man in custody." That, too, is sexist. Say "unknown person in custody." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.165.229.61 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you wouldn't care if it said gunwoman or woman holding a gun. Keep your feministic views off Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.212.144 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legitimate complaint.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneBrightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YAAFM. All reports describe a Male. Gunman is accurate.Mantion (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gunman cannot be called a gunman?, talk about Political correctness. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're correct. My edits can be reverted then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well i changed to armed man, can be changed to gunman if people want. But certainly needs to say male rather than individual. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They just mentioned that 12 was confirmed dead not 14. http://www.9news.com/video/9newsonline.aspx 5:48

Youngest victim

The youngest victim reported was a 6-year-old being treated at Children's Hospital Colorado...

Many credible reports describe a baby being shot and killed at point blank range.Mantion (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just reported by 9NEWS the youngest victim is 3 months old at Universal Medical Center 5:16. Information is on http://www.9news.com/news/article/278707/71/1-in-custody-14-dead-in-Aurora-theater-shooting "University Hospital confirmed to 9NEWS the youngest patient they have in their care is 3 months old. That baby's condition is unknown at this time."

YesY Done --wL<speak·check> 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM but, What kind of idiot brings a 3 month old to a midnight showing of an R rated movie with craploads of violence and lound noises that will just make them cry and annoy everyone else? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate comment, I suggest you retract it. GiantSnowman 14:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can redact such comments from talk pages, but im inclined to leave it here. Its also possible, of course, that reliable sources, or the public, will express such sentiments, so watching for that and discussing adding it to the article is appropriate (though unlikely)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Source

It'd be good to include facts from particular sources in sentences with their sources. For instance, the sentence that gives his age as 24 had a footnote to a news report that just says he's in his 20s. But 2 sentences later, an unrelated sentence has a citation to a news article that describes him as 24. It'd be good to keep the information near the correct citation, because I shortly (before undoing it) edited the 24 reference back to '20s' since the associated footnote said '20s'.Douglaswyatt (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to do this yourself. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 11:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to keep doing so. Douglaswyatt (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee license plates?

Unconfirmed reports of a Tennessee license plate for the gunman, does anyone know anything more about this? --Old Al (Talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely true not very relevant at this time.Mantion (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. This was listed at WP:RM/TR; I took a look here, saw a pretty clear consensus and so carried out the move. The history that was previously located at 2012 Aurora shooting is now at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting/old. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2012 Aurora shootings → 2012 Aurora shooting – I think the article title does need changing, at the very least it needs to be moved to shooting, which is more accurate than shootings (which implies more than one incident) as reflected by the overwhelming majority of news organisations using the term "shooting" -Daily Telegraph, BBC,CNN,Fox,Sky news,Guardian,CBS, ABC News, NBC news,Reuters,AFP,MSN,AP. I am not sure if there would be consensus at this stage to change the name to something like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, although i think it would be more helpful if it did have a title like that.. but at the very least we need to get a correct title like "2012 Aurora shooting". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support use of Denver as that is what the international press is using, but not "Denver Batman massacre". I agree that a wider debate on what is the best name is needed, i just want to see a speedy fix to this current title which is certainly inaccurate with "shootings", and not the term used by the sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Denver Batman massacre"?? It looks like the Batman conducted the massacre. In addition, American press uses Aurora. I think the local press is more accurate. --Coekon (talk)

If there are no objections to a speedy change to 2012 Aurora shooting should i list it as a technical move or is there an admin about that will be able to make this move if there is consensus? obviously its not something that should wait the standard 7 days. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I have requested a technical move here [4] to ask someone to move the article to 2012 Aurora shooting as there appears to be consensus now that is a more accurate title than shootings, and we should not wait for 7 days to correct it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks its been changed now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reactions

Just heard on 9news.com live feed that the Obama family as well as presidential candidate Mitt Romney have both commented thus far on this event. Idk how to do it but maybe we should add a Reactions section? Maybe not if that's only applicable to international events. 98.28.68.210 (talk)

 Done --wL<speak·check> 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? John Stamos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.66.9 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Total killed

Okay, sources are repeatedly jumping between 12-14-15 killed. Perhaps a better wording, until the facts get straightened out, would be to reflect this range. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources ive seen say 14, i think we should stick with what the most sources say unless there is far more conflicting sources. I saw one fox article url or headline say 15, yet the article it self and fox news at the time were saying 14. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm BBC has just changed theirs to at leaast 12. [5] so maybe we should change to the range and say conflicting reports. BBC had been saying 14 for hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now Fox on TV and the CNN article are both stating the figure has been revised down to 12. Guess it's still a wait-and-see thing. I'm wondering what set off the "14" figure. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BBC declares it is 12 now --Coekon (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media outlets likely reported 14 based on an initial scene assessment. Adhere to current reports, in which case the appropriate figure is 12. Mephtalk 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The local news station (9news.com out of Colorado I think) just stated there were 12 confirmed deaths so I'd have to support the first guy suggesting that multiple counts be mentioned for now. 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.68.210 (talk)
I don't want to start some sort of pro-life debate, but does wiki recognize a pregnant women as 1 death or 2?Mantion (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no position about this (WP:NPOV). We report casualties as they are reported by reliable sources, i.e., the media and authorities.  Sandstein  12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Wikipedia policy, it may be appropriate to mention special attributes of the victims that help describe the incident's impact. So it may be appropriate to mention that a pregnant woman was among the victims, if that has been confirmed, or a child or infant, as has been mentioned in some stories. One would not count a pregnant woman however as two victims for numerous reasons, including that one may not necessarily know if she was carrying one or more fetuses (or children, which the media may choose to describe her as carrying).[[User:Ssc] (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News reporting a young girl, six yrs old iirc, succumbed to injuries, so waiting on written source saying count has ticked up. :( — Huntster (t @ c) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the name of the suspect

Please refrain from including the name of the suspect. This is a standard protocol of media ethics that we should uphold. Making the name famous in the immediate aftermath incentivizes similar attacks. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Krford (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or a newspaper. - filelakeshoe 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.21 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sensible. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the news I saw the name has been released. I don't know if it's appropriate to put name here UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR). We are also not part of the media and I doubt that any code of professional ethics prohibits reporting the name of an alleged mass murderer. The name (if accompanied by a citation to reliable source, see WP:BLP) is highly relevant information and must be included.  Sandstein  12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source given so i've removed it... but you know why. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twyn3161 cut it out. Consensus is against you and I see no source cited from you saying that not releasing the name of a suspect is standard media protocol. I'm only familiar with not releasing the names of juveniles or victims. Here's your source with a name: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAlTqyIvyRY Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for no source. There's a source now. This is absurdly irresponsible, but have at it. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E allows for the inclusion of the suspect's name, and common freaking sense says this is important information. Stop this pointy stuff. It might be irresponsible in your view, but it isn't in the view of the community. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301897/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/should-media-make-mass-killers-famous/ There's a reason that the good newspapers - such as NYTIMES have not published the name but the poor ones have. Which would you rather be reflective of?Twyn3161 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read and understand WP:SOAPBOX. If you have a problem with policy, go and discuss it at WP:BLP/WP:BIO and at WP:CENSOR. This is not the place. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twyn3161 - the media always reports the name of suspects in crimes, often mistakenly - so your talk of "code of ethics" is, alas, not true. GiantSnowman 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thinkthe name is allowable under two restrictions : 1) only in the isolated suspect section for now, not in the overall article. 2) making sure always to identify as alleged/suspected etc and never factual. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only real restriction here is WP:BLPCRIME. If the suspect's name is readily available in reliable sources, it can be included in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He looked like an assassin ready to go to war" -9news Colorado. Twyn3161, there is no controversy in terms of who is the alleged gunman.

Map

Could people please explain why they believe a map showing the location of "Aurora, Colorado" is irrelevant? [6] [7] I thought this was the whole point of the map parameter of this infobox. - filelakeshoe 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map used previously showed no reference points. It just looked like a random sketch. Add some town or street names. Krford (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the map originally because there was no explanation for its removal, and the edit summary was misleading...thought it may have been a mistake. I see no problem with it, as it illustrates location, and the caption clearly states the town is the red mark. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again, I'm nearly at 3RR on this article, and don't have access to an image editing software right now so fine. I don't know what part of "location of Aurora (red) in the state of Colorado" was so hard to understand, but whatever. - filelakeshoe 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the map. There is absolutely no reason that it should be unwelcome, as the caption explains its significance to the article. As to the mention of "street names", this is a map of the entire state, not just the county of the shooting, that's why there's no street names. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Krford, stop removing the map. Several others have expressed that the map does indeed add something to the article, so find consensus against it before removing again. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, just saw your edit. To clarify my position, I don't think the map is terribly helpful for those without knowledge of US geography, but for those with knowledge, it helps to identify this location within the context of the state. The main reason I support its inclusion is because we completely lack any other imagery. Once we get an image of the theatre, or even the mall, I would certainly consider revisiting the subject of the map. But currently, I don't see any reason it shouldn't be there. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people will find this map more suitable: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012AuroraShootingLocation.png Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but I feel like it doesn't give any kind of frame of reference, at least, not like the current image does (which at least makes it clear where in the state of Colorado that Aurora is). Other thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone with access to image editing software could emulate something like what there is at 2011 Tucson shooting I suppose that would be an improvement. - filelakeshoe 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check it now. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but are google maps not copyrighted? - filelakeshoe 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
https://developers.google.com/maps/terms Section 8.3 Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point that was raised. Google Maps only give a license for personal, non-transferable use. The content remains copyrighted and is non-free. Sorry, but it cannot be used in this situation, when a free alternative exists. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok edited using an image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (CC BY-SA). Check now. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd my map go?! that thing took me like 20 minutes! Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when it was removed, but please be mindful that this is Wikipedia, and if others don't like the map, they are free to remove it. Time invested is no guarantee of it being kept. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is pretty worthless for those that don't know the county shapes of colorado by heart. I think a bigger scale map showing perhaps the whole state, and a few major cities or something would be significantly more informative. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Grenade vs. Tear Gas Canister

NBC, CNN, and witness interviews report a tear gas canister - not a smoke grenade. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-scene/ Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some reports of 2 canistersMantion (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen tear gas reports (BBC radio) being reported by officials & survivors. GiantSnowman 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the story closely this morning and the so-called "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" has been described in the reports -- often by witnesses who are simply using metaphors to explain what they saw, heard, or in many cases simply what they've heard by hearsay -- in so many ways, it's unclear if it was truly a "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" or what. It's been described in various media reports as a "flash-bang", as tear gas, or some sort of smoke grenade. Until there is some official statement on what it was, it may be much better to describe it as what witnesses have generally described as a canister that released some sort of gas or smoke (and more properly that would be called an aerosol, but that's a minor technical point). All sources I've read or heard have used very similar terms, and no reports contradict that sort of phrasing. I'd like for someone here who can describe this in more temperate, accurate language to change the reference to "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to reflect this. (edit at 10:15 central, I tried changing "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to "a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke" to reflect language from "Aurora 'Dark Knight' Shooting Suspect Identified: James Holmes" from abc.go.com, By PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC) , RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW MOSK (@mattmosk) , JACK DATE and JASON RYAN @JasonRyanABC)-- and Ill try to properly footnote this. July 20, 2012 User:Ssc (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ok I tried to change the sentence now a few times and reference this URL: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889 and add this sentence: "The gunman then deployed a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke before opening fire, killing 12 and injuring at least 50 - among them a six year old." -- but I can't due to an "edit conflict" meaning someone saved an edit since I began to edit the page in this particular session -- so someone who knows better what to do, please make this or a similar change. User:Ssc (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are using "tear gas" then, in the Warner Brothers' reaction, "...where gangster characters tear through a theater screen..." the verb "tear" should be changed to "rip." (Also 1st edit! Hi Wiki Community.) Phreshbreth (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were there a poison gas attack by Joker in the comics? (85.156.144.9 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

License plates

I heard that two cars had license places from Tennessee. Just update, Sorry if has been posted. UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they had proof that the plates were from there.UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thought to be the worst mass shooting in the US since Virginia Tech"

What does "worst" mean? Most people killed? If that's the case then surely this is easily verifiable and "thought to" is inappropriate. The source isn't very clear on it. - filelakeshoe 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is fluff and the sources are unclear. I would avoid at this point that kind of thing until the sources stabilize. I mean this happened like 5 hours ago. --Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff or not, this seems like a fairly clear claim and seems to be referenced. --John (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
except 13 died in Fort hood shooting, compared to 12 in this as currently reported. So ive removed for now, maybe later once all the figures are completely confirmed it might be worth putting something like that. But not at this stage as figures continue to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear - "thought to be" without agent is passive voice abuse, and it's not clear what is meant by "worst", is this most people killed, most people injured, killed + injured, or some guy's opinion? - filelakeshoe 13:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reference to Virginia Tech? Is it necessary? --Possum4all (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just be specific - if it's the most deaths then say that...if it's the most deaths and woundings, then say so. There is no need to use something as vague as "worst" when you can simply replace it with whatever criterion you're using to judge that upon. SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source which cited the statement used the word "worst" without clarification. - filelakeshoe 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Mitt Romney?

In all reality, why is Mitt Romney's opinion on the matter relevant? We could put the opinion of the Governor of Colorado, Hillary Clinton, the Pope, LeBron James, or any 'important' person. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source has provided another person's reponse, feel free to include that as well. GiantSnowman 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of balance Romney should be quoted too and the media saw it notable enough to state his response. There should of course be other reaction too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of section is standard. As to LeBron James, no, but if the Colorado Rockies cancelled a game or held a ceremony, that would likely be relevant. Basically, the info is there for those interested, but can be skipped by those who aren't. If you aren't interested, skip reading it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 192. Obama is the elected representative of the country where this happened, Perlmutter represents the district, Warner Brothers represents their film. All relevant. Romney has nothing to do with the story. This isn't an election debate. There's no need for "balance". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hulk, this isn't a political issue, and 5 or 10 years from now Romney may just be another guy that ran for President of the U.S., but didn't make it. Or he may make it. Who knows. But just running for President doesn't make your comments on unrelated matters "encyclopedia worthy." Now if he was the police chief, or the governor of Colorado, or something like that (relevant), I could see including it. But as far as I can tell, his only immediate connection to Colorado is to get their votes. And this isn't a political article, or shouldn't be at least. JeffreyW75 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rockies wore black wristbands in their Friday game against San Diego. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theyre still notable figures and not "just another guy."Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They (eg. Romney) may be notable people but they aren't relevant to the event the article is about. EryZ (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of victims

Krford has repeatedly removed references to Jessica Redfield, a sportswriter that was tweeting from the theatre until the film started. It's relevant curiousity of our digital age, and for that reason, it seems relevant. Previously, she escapes Toronto Eaton Centre#2012 shooting, another shooting in a public area. Opinions? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source mentions one of the victims may be a person of (some) note, or that they were at least present, then so should we. Escaping another shooting is interesting but only trivia. GiantSnowman 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think she is notable enough to be on this article. United States Man (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her tweets have been the subject of news coverage in Canada, the United States, and Britain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
US Man - I have reverted you - we do not decide if she is notable enough, reliable sources do. GiantSnowman 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does she have a wiki page? United States Man (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a subtle difference between 'notable enough for a standalone article' and 'notable enough to be mentioned'. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what's the concensus? It seems the concensus is that there doesn't have to be a Wikipedia article on someone to justify mentioning their actions in a notable situation, but is it agreed that her tweeting is relevant enough for the article, given the media coverage of it? There's hundreds of articles now about her, apparently she's also the first confirmed victim. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her real name is Jessica Ghawi. Jessica Redfield was her pen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.7.156 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, do you have a source? (probably not) United States Man (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, USMan? Try Googling. There's 1750 references in Google News to her, currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then a source needs to be put on here. A google search is NOT a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of linking to sources, on the talk page? if there is a concensus to add this information, then the source would appear in the article itself. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm pretty sure that's not what Zanimum was implying. He was merely showing you that there are plenty of sources available since you doubted the existence of any. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia Tech massacre includes a list of the slain, along with brief personal details for the purpose of identification (full name, age, hometown, and major or status at the school). I'd think that a similar list of confirmed dead including the first three pieces of information would be appropriate for this article, for similar reasons. Given that Ghawi was apparently fairly widely known by her pen name, it would probably be appropriate to include both names for her entry (i.e. Jessica Ghawi, AKA "Jessica Redfield") in the interest of clarity. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack

Is this terrorist attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"FBI [... said no terrorism link had been established". GiantSnowman 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming with time. GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Describing things as a terroist attack is a gray area. The FBI is using it to mean that it is not associated with a known terror group, or being done for political motivation (as far as is known). However that means that "terrorism" is restricted to motive and not method, which is somewhat ambiguous/confusing. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, it most likely fits the description of "domestic terrorism". But it's unlikely that a major terrorist group such as Al Qaeda was involved. Though right now, it's all speculation. We need to let the police and FBI do their research. WTF? (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it certainly appears to match the definition of a terrorist attack, but that isn't for us to decide. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The FBI response pretty much translates as "not an organized terrorist attack," I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it they call it a terrorist attack when they find a link to a grouping that either formerly claimed violent attacks , or they consider an organisation on the terrorist listing themselves? 62.163.248.13 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Lone wolf terrorismLihaas (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shooting. Let it be called a shooting for now. That speaks more to the motive of the shooting, which at this point remains unknown. Theo10011 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number Killed

Sources had reporting the count at 14. Should this be reflected upon the article? Piandcompany (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above section...reports are between 12 and 15, with 12 being the currently reported figure by most places. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now 12, see "Can't resolve bad refs" in Talk. Regards, Laguna CA (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Massacre

The killings are also being called "The Batman Massacre" should this be added to the article? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 14:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mentioned in a reliable source... GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the stupidest name i've heard. United States Man (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose any reference to batman being put in the first sentence as an alternative description, but if there are a lot of sources using similar such terms it might be worth including in an media reaction section. But nnot in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for us to decide, really. Should the media settle on a name like "Dark Knight massacre", we would most definitely include it prominently in the lead. The only reason not to do so is because it's too early to tell. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the name "Dark Knight massacre" is far more widely used in the news media. Following my request, it has been created as a redirect to help people looking for more information after reading one of the many online sources referring to the shooting as "Dark Knight massacre". But even though many news articles call it that, I don't believe it warrants mention in the article, for now. There is no "official" name for the shooting, so the current generic title is perfectly fine. Only if and when after a couple of weeks the media appear to settle on one or more names for the shooting, we can then discuss including them in the article lead. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News, BBC and CNN, specifically, are calling it the "Batman Massacre." --Petercorless (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And ABC too. -- Luke (Talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then create a redirect from Batman massacre. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a redirect. If you want this in the article or as a redirect then list the actual sources. You can't source live TV. United States Man (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the redirects have already been created. They are highly useful for the many people coming to Wikipedia from those news sources which refer to the incident as 'Batman massacre' or 'Dark Knight massacre'. These two names appear to be the most commonly used, and they should probably be included in the intro. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that comment eas a little late. That redirect was created more than 2 hours ago. United States Man (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for sources calling the incident 'Batman massacre' or 'Dark Knight massacre'? There's plenty for both variants. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to call it that, sounds more like a tabloid headline. Might just be a case of WP:Recentism, better to not promote that name and revisit when more information is available. Theo10011 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i found both references to the batman massacre on foxnews.com and at people.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA0:D600:6CEF:A770:D9B8:E53A (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Reaction

"In France, the shooting is major news. It's the top story on leading newspaper Le Monde's website and also top national broadcaster TF1's site and also on cable news network iTele and BFM TV's sites. It was also the leading story on public TV network France 3's 12 p.m. news program." Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12855087-dark-knight-rises-paris-premiere-scrapped-following-us-shootings?lite Jonathan.richmond (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a media coverage/reaction section for the article. which could include where some of the other descriptions for this shooting get mentioned if they are reliably sources. It is dominating the news here in the UK too, so international media reaction would have plenty of notable stuff to include. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be in the article then I agree 100%. United States Man (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEBOLD and go for it. GiantSnowman 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not start the usual nonsense like "the King of Foobar expressed condolences". Almost every nation does it, it's inevitable, and it's not exceptional or notable. Krford (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. Everybody and their mother expresses their condolences simply because that's expected protocol in our times of instant global news. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Krford - I don't think we were going to include every last nation that expressed condolences, just the more notable ones (such as France). United States Man (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting Krford's point. What makes anyone (including e.g. President Obama) expressing their condolences notable for this particular incident when they routinely express their condolences for every single incident like this? --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obama/romney I would say should be included, as their reactions (or lack thereof) could be inherently notable . (See how reactions to say 9/11, katrina, other shootings have been spun for political purposes etc). For other things (mayor of NY, random leaders of other states/countries) I would agree they should be held to a minimum unless they are in some way more notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should see if we can get consensus on a moratorium on updating the reactions section for an hour or two. There are so many reactions coming out right now (especially with Obama speaking) that it could cause a lot of problems with edit conflicts. Anyone in favor? Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of maintaining what's currently there, I agree. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have something like "The leaders of various countries, including (country),<ref> (country),<ref> and (country),<ref> expressed their condolences Friday." Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until Romney leads a country (or relevant state, district or town), his opinion is irrelevant, aside from the unrelated upcoming election. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to agree here. It seems like Romney was added to balance out the statement from Obama. Election year or not, Wikipedia is not required to provide equal time to candidates, and his inclusion seems out of place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

video

video of the incident/aftermath is being shown by several major news sites, should we include a link? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not needed because it has nothing to do with the shootings. Its probably just video of the police running around and victims still trying to figure out what happened. And, please use capital letters when you start sentences or people might think you are lacking common sense. United States Man (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many different videos of the aftermath anyway which dont seem to add to much (although an acknowledgement of the existance of these clips, if there isn't one already would be a good idea). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of New York comments notable ?

The mayor of new york has commented, with more than mere expressions of sympathy for the incident.[8] would that be worth including in the reaction section and possibly using it to link to an article on the US gun debate? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds mostly like a political response to me, and not all that notable. The NYC police commissioner's comments regarding NYC police watching over screenings for copycat crimes might be more notable, though. WTF? (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of / need for emergency warning

I strongly believe there is a need for a section relating to something like this. It is interesting (and disturbing) that the moviegoers thought the violence was part of the movie premiere's action or something. It makes one wonder how warning could have been issued to the people in the theater (whether it was or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.rider81 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources have to say on the matter? GiantSnowman 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's policy on this. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excited to see discussion from some people on this! Chrisbrl88, I'm actually aware of that policy, but I think that if this article is to have any value, it should do what so many other mature Wikipedia articles do and move beyond what I like to call "emotional voyeurism," which is where I believe this article currently resides. What I mean is that, for example, having a comment about what the NYC mayor said about the shooting... that just doesn't seem valuable (I might even take it as possible political propaganda). But I see an emergency exit door being propped open without any kind of emergency response/mitigation effect as at least worthy of mention! I don't want to step on toes or argue here (which is why I'm engaging the community via the talk page), but if some appropriate sources can be found to at least mention this, would everyone agree that it's worth inclusion into the article? chris.rider81 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable sources that talk about it, including talking about its relevance, and it can be added. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good sourcing on the propping-open thing there. You'd need sources on the relevance of any alarm system (working or not working or not there) to add anything on that, but this was a good start. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Eagan" as suspect's middle name

There have already been a number of spurious web articles about Denver-area "James Holmes" targeting entirely innocent people with the same first and last names. I saw one irresponsible blogger tried to point to an entirely innocent person's Facebook page. He was rightly lambasted by feedback and pulled down the link. But, to head off such craziness, I am adding "Eagan" as the published middle name of the suspect to ensure other people do not make dreadful confusion about entirely innocent individuals. ([9]) --Petercorless (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Brian Ross of ABC News apparently also misidentified a wrong "Jim Holmes" of Aurora, CO.[10] Hold on to your hats, folks. Without any direct proof one way or the other, people have already tried to blame Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. We might need to create a section about misidentification and witch-hunting if this goes on. --Petercorless (talk)
Agreed, a non-unique name. (See census.gov) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resemblance to Bane?

Is it important to note that the gas mask resembles the main antagonist of the film? SwimFellow (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to keep speculation out of Wikipedia. --Petercorless (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source it and include it, or don't source it and don't. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find some reliable sources on the resemblance. -- Luke (Talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I heard Matt Lauer say something about it, but it's a stretch. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a comment by one of the moviegoers. "Holmes was caught by police in the parking lot of the movie theater shortly after the shooting still dressed in his riot gear, an outfit eerily similar to a villain in "The Dark Knight Rises." I am not sure that's enough to say it's ok yet. Jhenderson 777 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only phrasings I can think of to put that in run afoul of WP:WEASEL, I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to not put that either. It sounds like speculation. BTW haven't any of you guys heard of the news that guy supposedly claimed he was the Joker? Jhenderson 777 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more like an opinion, that he resembled bane even from the link cited above. I'm assuming he was wearing a gas mask, since it was reported he threw in a gas cansiter of some sort. The article already mentions "He appeared to be wearing a costume" which doesn't appear in a lot of sources I saw. Theo10011 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if sourced, I think it's a stretch. We are supposed to use judgement. Use gas: use a gas mask! Are we supposed to link Sherlock or Mycroft Holmes because of the perp's last name? Sure, Holmes might have been under pressure because Sherlock (fictional) and Mycroft (f) are both geniouses, do we decide James has an inferiority complex because of the fictional Holmes's? OR much? Laguna CA (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage by Uwe Boll

I don't want to indicate anything, and admittedly this can be a mere coincidence, but Holmes' outfit, as it is described by the media, reminds me of the one worn by Bill Williamson in Uwe Boll's Rampage, especially because gas masks and helmets, other than bulletproof vests, are rarely parts of a rampage killers equipment. Also, this is the second such incident that is more or less connected to a Batman movie, even though in the other case, the Dendermonde nursery attack, this connection has proven to be unfounded. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I see what you mean, but until reliable sources confirm any inspiration / even mention the conncection, neither should we. GiantSnowman 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Only Positive Responses Be Posted?

If a politician uses events like these to advance his political opinions, should that also be noted? A minor Republican politician in Texas is saying this incident is the result of attacks on Judeo-Christian belief systems. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html?1342794304. He's a minor character, but in 2007, Gingrich said the same thing about the Virginia Tech shooting, and he was a somewhat more major player. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be included unless notable in some way, just like the positive ones. If this launches a larger gun control debate, or society debate that is widely covered and itself notable, then some of these types of things would be included. Not yet though. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if that politician becomes more prominent in years to come, the news story about his comments will likely still be available (unless the Huffington Post goes out of business). I agree that there's no need to add the comments of some random person who has no connection to the event itself. --ΨΦorg (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Stamos

Mr. Stamos is much more notable than and as equally irrelevant as Mitt Romney. I see no reason why his reaction should be excluded, if Romney's is allowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack noted. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poor grasp of what constitutes a personal attack noted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You accused him of indulging in pointy behavior, deliberately and dishonestly dismissing the validity of his argument. At the very least, you're being highly uncivil here and not contributing to a constructive discussion. Cut it out. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Petty bickering noted. GiantSnowman 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Incorrect. Hulk was engaging in WP:POINTy behavior in adding the Stamos thing, as Hulk tried to remove Romney, then started adding Stamos with comments about him being more important than Romney. Admittedly, that someone is being WP:POINTy doesn't mean they don't have a point. I disagree with Hulk on this one, but that doesn't mean I dismiss their argument, it means I counter it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% not personally offended and 100% guilty of being pointy. It's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually, reccomend you add the reaction from someone who was in the movie in question. Also, the presumptive nominee of the major opposition party is relevant to any event of national significance. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitt Romney is running for President of the USA. John Stamos is running for Mr Twitter USA. WWGB (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what does the election have to do with a shooting? Everyone else quoted has some relation to this event. Romney has a relation to Obama, who speaks as the current President of the United States, not a candidate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gun control is an incredibly political topic. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can find the official reaction of the NRA, that'd be nice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can find the official reaction of Rebecca Romijn, that'd be nice. 72.49.127.175 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theater versus theatre

I disagree with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart that theater is the US way of referring to the building. Both are used in my experience. In this specific case, I feel that we should change theater to theatre throughout because it took place in Century Theatres. Wouldn't a building operated by Century Theatres be a Theatre not a Theater? I feel that in a case where the regional spelling is not strict we should go with the way it is described by the company that owns it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point well made. GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) The actual name of the building is called a "theater" in American English. In my opinion, I think we should leave it as "theater" if it is describing the actual building. -- Luke (Talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about as 'merican as you can get, but I probably refer to the building as a theatre 9 times out of 10. At the same time, I did some searches and sources like Fox news were referring to it as a theater and theater 9. Perhaps the most appropriate change would be "Century 16 Movie Theater"→"Century 16 Movie Theatre"? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual name of the company name is "Century Theatres", however we should use language consistent with the location. I'm not too sure how much MOS:TIES goes into this, but I would think most people in the USA use "theater", according to Movie theater#Spelling and alternative terms. -- Luke (Talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulate me, I scan both versions as correct. No idea how that happened; "colour" and "labour" still look wrong to me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QUOTE 'A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there.' Quote sources! M-w.com??? As near as I can tell, in the US, "theatre" is solely pretension much like "olde" for "old", "ye" for "the" (should be "þe" for "the". With respect, Ryan, you're trying to make sense of English is which is a hopeless cause! Consider "ough": slough (sluff/rhymes with rough/tough), slough (sloo/rhymes with boo/true), slough (slou/rhymes with bough/cow)--slough your slough in a slough ("cast off your depression in a ditch"); bough, cough, dough, fought/bought/thought, ought/wrought, slough (sloo), tough--seven different pronunciations of "ough"! Why is English special? Because it comes from Latin, Greek, French, German, Angle, Saxon, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc., etc. etc...! it doesn't borrow words, it mugs foreign languages in dark alleys, and rifles vocabulary from them!
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. " --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll
Occasionally? Habitually!
HOWEVER: "Century Theatres is now Cinemark Theatres": http://www.centurytheaters.com/
This (I think) is a valid reason to change to "theatre".
Laguna CA (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment regarding Romney (and Stamos).

Is Mitt Romney's reaction relevant to this story, or is he merely included for political reasons pertaining to an unrelated upcoming election? Also, is John Stamos' reaction relevant? He is arguably far more famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is newsworthy the shooting has put off U.S. Presidential election campaign activities. It may even be newsworthy to quote each of the major party candidates. But other celebrities are generally not relevant if they are merely expressing opinions. --Petercorless (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Peter's above comment. Note that if this happened in Canada or the UK, the Leader of the Opposition would be quoted. For all intents and purposes, within a Republican system, Romney fills the same role. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a major candidate stated that they had a change in policy opinion as a result of this, I would not find their reactions encyclopedic, even if they are newsworthy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I highly disagree. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, Ryan. The difference between newsworthy and encyclopedic completely eludes many editors though. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the reactions included in this version are appropriate. I don't feel that more (Mitt Romney or John Stamos) should be included. I do feel when the president of a country comments on something it is notable enough for inclusion. Ed Purlmutter's reaction is relevant because he represents the district. Janet Napolitano's reaction is relevant because it is similar to a terrorist attack and an aspect of homeland security. I would reformat the Warner Bros reaction and the NYCPD reaction into a new section. While these are reactions, they are relevant as actions taken as a result of the attack, not as statements. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should use reliable sources to verify statements, but not model its presentation after them. US news is obsessed with the election and every mention of Obama is therefore juxtaposed with one of Romney. Obama is the current President of the United States and speaks in that capacity here, not as a candidate. This is an encyclopedia article about a mass murder, not a pissing contest about who condemns it more. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If president obamas is there, Romneys should be for balance, also the media have covered what romney says. I put on skynews here in the UK a few hours ago and they had it at a romney campaign event waiting for him to speak on the matter. His comments are notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are gold, so find them or you cannot list either one. United States Man (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There ARE sources for Romney. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment: I just re-added it again. I'll happily abide by consensus if it goes against, but it should stay as is until this discussion is complete, IMO. This per WP:BRD, since the Bold is the removal and the Revert is the re-addition (as the initial addition was uncontested for a while). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense all reactions. I find the detailed inclusion of politicians' condolatory boilerplate statements in general to be unnecessary, because they are invariably made after high-profile events like this in more or less the same manner. At most, I'd say something like: "President Obama and other U.S. political leaders made statements deploring the shooting and extending their condolences." Anything more is really not interesting unless it is somehow unusual or particularly reported.  Sandstein  17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone located any sources for Stamos other than Twitter. United States Man (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one I originally added it with was some celebrity news site. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be okay if we could find more, but I don't think it can stand on just that. United States Man (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the media is requesting comments from Romney can be encyclopedic, and the responses from Romney relative the media requests as well. But the fact that Romney has made statements regarding the shootings, is not relevant to the primary event here, but only to the election event. →AzaToth 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having gone away for a little bit, I have a compromise suggestion: let's have subsections in the Reaction section. Subsection 1: reactions by related gov't officials, including Obama (- the part about his campaign stops), Perlmutter, Napolitano, and to be expanded by adding reactions from the Colorado Governor and Senators if any, etc. Subsection 2: reactions by other political figures, including Obama's campaign-stop info, Romney, NYC police commissioner, foreign heads of state, etc. Subsection 3: related entertainment reactions, like Warner Bros., various theaters showing it, etc. Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No to both. Romney is a private citizen who is temporarily more newsworthy than usual (primarily in one country), who has no connection to the area or to the movie, and I don't see his reaction as being any more appropriate than that of the chairman of General Electric, or Rerun from What's Happening!! (or John Stamos, for that matter). And adding John Stamos's reaction is an obviously bad idea, unless it is paired with Bob Saget's. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Sandstein in spirit, but I would go further than that. I would tend to leave out the political reactions entirely since they do not illuminate the subject at all. The reaction from Warner Brothers should be included and the rest of this section should be culled or at least dramatically condensed. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing in this RFC so I went ahead and did it, at least for now. causa sui (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my response to Ryan above, I dug up the bit about Napolitano acting in her official capacity rather than her politician capacity. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political reactions are 100% relevant here. It shows the level o f partian politics that is "dangeorus" akin to the shooting in AZ just south ocf CO.Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Stamos is really not that relevant to this story, or any story. I can see the point about Romney's reaction being relevant since this event might dominate his campaign, and even shape the upcoming election. How presidential candidates respond and handle crisis in an election year, seems far more relevant to an encyclopedia than a reaction from a celebrity on a tragic incident. Theo10011 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to the Mitt Romney article, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Quoting Mayor Bloomberg from NY times, “You know, soothing words are nice,” Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, “but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.” - [11] People want to hear the reaction from the presidential candidates, and how this will affect their campaign. Theo10011 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most important reaction is that from the movie director. The family's reactions are important in life but too numerous for the article. Certainly it is very common to want to put politician's comments, like the President, Mr. Romney, the Governor, the Mayor, but we are just being a tool of their campaign if we do it. It is the duty of officials to express condolences as is not notable. It would be notable if the President or Governor started laughing and made a crazy comment. Auchansa (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guns and Ammunition used by Shooter

NBC News reported on the weapons and ammunition used by James Holmes, the shooter.

"Officials told NBC News that the gunman had four weapons: two handguns, made by Glock, a Remington 870 single-barrel shotgun and a Smith and Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle. The weapons can accommodate large ammunition clips, but authorities haven't said what kind of magazines were used." [1]

NBC News Justice and National Security Correspondent Pete Williams said that Holmes brought three weapons into the theater, leaving one of the Glock handguns in his car. Additionally, Williams added, "Witnesses say he used the shotgun first, then picked up the rifle and resumed with that."

Can anyone find other sources of this information? --Mattge3 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the press conference televised by CNN it was just said that he used the shotgun, the AR-15 and at least one of his two .40-caliber Glock pistols. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"a Remington 870 single-barrel shotgun" is better described (I think!) as "a Remington 870 pump shotgun" unless someone knows of a double-barreled pump shotgun: in which case "a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun". The question (in my thoughts) is how fast the gun could be fired. Some early descriptions talked about two shots, then more shots; that could refer to a double-barrel followed by the AR-15. Thus, this is a matter that needs clarity. Laguna CA (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney speech

It's time now to include Mitt Romney's speech.

Please see the discussion above. United States Man (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even I think that's a ridiculous suggestion, anon. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, through the election, Obama and Romney are fair game (and important game), and it is desirable to give them both a chance to put their foots in their mouths. I think there's a different between calling a spade a spade (apologies!) and giving politicians a pass on putting their foots in their mouths. But, I confess, I speak in ignorance of official WikiP policy. A link would be appreciated! (Hopefully, I can sort it out from my logorrhea. ;) (Logorrhea: that's why we put up with English's numerous faults!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Batman massacre deletion talk, fyi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_20#Denver_Batman_massacre Herp Derp (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Possible Explosive Device Booby Trap

Device in the suspect's apartment described as numerous(1-2 liter?) soda bottles wired together.

Source? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot include things without a source. United States Man (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was mentioned on the 9news live broadcast, not aware of an article source.

one source here: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21118947/police-search-apartment-suspected-gunman-deadly-aurora-shooting
also http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/colorado-shooting-suspect-neighbor-he-seemed-like-a-normal-kid.html last two paragraphs. →AzaToth 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment with music late at night

I haven't heard this on the news yet, but wouldn't you say that music turning on and off between 12 and 1 am (ish) that this would more likely have been an alibi? It's possible that he got caught foiling that plan, OR had changed his mind on using the alibi. For some reason the news keeps saying there are booby traps in his apartment, but they haven't really said they actually found something there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.188.21 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Image

Images have been released to the media, courtesy of the U of CO, where Holmes was previously a student. Anybody working on getting one up here? --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May not be in line with policy to use an image from the university. However, since he's in police custody and presumably hard to photograph, the rule might not apply. --NYKevin 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image was released to the general press, so I'm not thinking it will be an issue. However, I don't have much experience in the matter of image uploads so I will defer my opinion to someone better acquainted with the policy. --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the image, and its release? I'd like to investigate its copyright status. But the short version is that unless the release is very specific about releasing copyright, it is presumptively non-free. --NYKevin 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[12]. Huffingtonpost --Stryn (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images taken by news sources or found on suspect's facebook etc are copyright and not acceptable for use in wikipedia. If a mugshot is taken, that would be free of copyright but has the problem with WP:MUG. How to display pics of suspects/victims has been extensively debased on the Trayvon Martin page, and it was determined that the policy supports a single non-free image of a dead person, as there is no way to obtain a new image of them. For a suspect, a mughshot may be acceptable if it is not obviously a mugshot or otherwise prejudicial due to WP:MUG In the absense of that, no pic is allowed. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking like the AP got it first, most other news agencies are crediting University of Colorado through the Associated Press. There's an image of him in this story here, that's about the best I can do. --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we should just put the non-free one up and say that it's hard to photograph a person in custody. That won't apply once the shooter goes to trial or something, but it'll last for at least a few weeks. --NYKevin 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that is is hard to take a photo of. If that was the standard, then the entire copyright policy would be much less useful. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we should avoid putting a picture of him up at all until formal charges are filed at the very least. Per the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of the place, on the other hand, would be nice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding the use of the word "killer" in the file name should be avoided as well... Jc3 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The police say they will release a mugshot today or shortly, so I would think it'd be better to wait for that.

Old Al (Talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Aurora police chief said the booking photo would not be released today (day of shooting) but it will surely emerge shortly, as is common practice. That could be used, as it is the work of a U.S. government employee. — O'Dea (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain about this, but wouldn't only mugshots from the federal government be pd? A local mug shot is covered by state or local law. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

2012 Aurora shooting → 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting – The city should be followed by the state name per WP:USPLACE. Thechased (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page has already been moved so i'm closing the discussion. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be reopened, since the move was REVERTED. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please do something about this page? I was in the middle of replying and its ended up on a new talk page lol Talk:2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed: The page has been redirected here. --NYKevin 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone should feel free to reopen the discussion, but please don't move the article until there's a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and move rights are tied together, it seems. If you lock an article down, so that it can't be moved by anyone but a sysops, you're also blocking the page from edits by anyone but a sysops. We'll have to rely on trusting others in this situation. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's quite possible to move protect a page. But there's no need unless everyone is going to fight over it. --NYKevin 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3)

I've fully protected the page per WP:WRONGVERSION now. →AzaToth 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If ambiguity is a problem, what about the ambiguity of the fact there have been previous shootings in Aurora too? There is no ambiguity problems with this notable event. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
like this one at a church [13] which is a shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an article about that shooting is created I don't see a problem.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is clear enough as it is. It just takes a glance at the article to find out what state the event took place in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The story is too big to have any confusion. KISS. As was said earlier, show me another famous Aurora shooting in 2012, where there might be confusion, then we need to make a change. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a Columbine in Alberta as well, but that doesn't mean it requires specification in the title. This article is the same. --Old Al (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe the title is specific enough (compare 2011 Tucson shooting) as it is and should not be weighted down unnecessarily. Furthermore, WP:USPLACE seems to indicate that its prescriptions apply to articles solely about places, not articles that happen to contain names of places in them. DillonLarson (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title is ambiguous because it's too broad of a location (a relatively small theater within Colorado's third largest city)... not to mention that there are many Auroras. If any sort of place is attributed to the title, it should probably be the movie theater's name? Look at Virginia-Tech, for example. Otherwise, perhaps attribute the event, e.g. "The Dark Knight Rises massacre" or something? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The title should have the city and state name in this case because the city is not instantly recognizable, such as New York City or Los Angeles, to a worldwide audience. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's good right now. --Stryn (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, though I support aliases of other possible names to point to this page, "2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting," or "2012 Aurora, CO shooting," etc. Rather than move the page, just make a pointer. --Petercorless (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As said before, the guideline refers to the place articles, not necessary other articles that refer to that place. Full name is bulky and unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while there may be more than one Aurora in the US I don't think this should be moved unless there is another notable shooting in another city named Aurora this year.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Existing title is perfectly adequate, and the location of Aurora in Colorado is clearly identified and Wikilinked within the article. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should go by WP:COMMONNAME here, the average reader would see that this took place in Colorado as it's in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, i thought of this first, too, but after checking Category:Mass murder in 2012, i see we dont include the state/country, just the city, in titles for such. I understand the nominators rationale, but thats so that the title indicates which aurora we are talking about. in this case, we only need to worry about which killing in a city named aurora we are talking about. theres only one. same reason we dont name this article "July 2012 Aurora shooting" as we dont anticipate more this year in this city. we can always go rename articles later if more events occur with similar names (also the reason no one named the Great War "world war 1" when it happened.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that the current title adheres to protocol, yes, yay, woot woot, but really just isn't descriptive enough. I'm not American and when I found my way here I was initially at a complete loss as to why the article was called '2012 Aurora shooting" because I had no idea what Aurora is. We aren't an American encyclopedia, and I don't see the detriment of including a tiny bit more detail to make the title more informative at first glance. Sure the info will be in the introduction, but the argument to leave necessary clarification out of a title is like saying books should have ambiguous covers (because it's protocol!?) and force the reader to read through the first few pages to understand what the book is about. I suggest something like "2012 Aurora movie theatre/theater shooting", which is the best option. Gives necessary clarification. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is not so good but at least still better than the current one. EryZ (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat support The city of Aurora is not that well known. The current title is not good. Some news sources have called it the Batman Movie Massacre or Shooting. This is preferred for now. Auchansa (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical disparity in the lead

Resolved

The lead was recently changed [14] to say that there were 13 deaths. This disagrees with the infobox and the victims section at the moment, but cites a source. Should we update the other numbers to match? --NYKevin 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source then go for it. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Reaction

Is it worth including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reaction? It was more of a call for action than the other more sympathetic reactions.

During his weekly appearance on WROS, Bloomberg said, "You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic,’ and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns? I can tell you what we do here in New York. The State Legislature passed the toughest gun laws – some states may say no. That’s okay, what do you want to do? And maybe every Governor should stand up. But in the end, it is really the leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be President of the United States starting next January 1st – what are they going to do about guns?"[2] [3] --Mattge3 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a sentence from the NY mayor should be included, it could then link to the article on Gun politics in the United States BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't have every politician's reaction on here. Plus, he really has nothing to do with it. He is in NYC and this happened in Colorado. United States Man (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Batman lives in New York (kind of). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to include Mayor Bloomberg's reaction, on the grounds that (i) he is a major politician with a national reputation, and (ii) he said something beyond the usual expressions of condolence and regret. But perhaps we should wait and see how much coverage his reaction gets; if it's not much, it need not be included. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the presidential candidates to state what they are going to do about guns". Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like hot air to me. Maybe notable enough for the Bloomberg article.InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Medical Student

While the San Francisco Chronicle initially reported that the suspect is a medical student, he is in fact a Neuroscience PhD candidate at the Graduate School of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. Since he is not associated with the School of Medicine located at the same campus, he is not a "medical student". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.69.177 (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copy pasted this from Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting since someone posted it there without realising that the move-revert had occurred. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9GAG

I've seen a few references to 9gag. What is the relationship between the suspect and 9gag? Also I just heard from the police cheif Oats that there has been social media pranks. Evidently someone called a tv station pretending to be the police cheif. Should any of that be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.97.189 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the 9gag connection. I would say it is not appropriate for the article as a WP:HOAX unless it gains significant coverage or is determined to not be a hoax. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/9gag-users-posts-egging-on-shooter-hoax_n_1689765.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Gohmert

Louie Gohmert's comments on the shooting are not really about the shooting at all; he is using the shooting merely as an excuse for a disjointed rant about religious persecution. The article shouldn't be used to provide a soapbox for Gohmert's irrelevant commentary. 71.110.102.77 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gohmert's comments, in addition to being inflammatory, are quite irrelevant to the event in question. siafu (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When they were described earlier, I thought they were more to the point; they're not. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, if his comments get commented on extensively, negative or positive, we may have to include them, though probably not in such detail. PS, the original source, huffpo, says they made a reporting error, and first reported he said it was the "crazy act of a derelict." He in fact called it "a crazy act of terror like this."source: [15]. i will refrain from commenting on this elected representatives ideas.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of family section

Can someone point me to how the information removed here is a BLP violation? It appears to me that names should not be given, but the rest is relevant. Specifically the families statement on the guilt of the son. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph may be unnecessary, but I find the second paragraph relevant. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that the family is not needed. United States Man (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is a clear violation of WP:BLP. The second paragraph was content duplicated elsewhere in the article. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so here's the problem. We both ([16] [17]) removed what was the second portion of your family reference as a duplicate at virtually the same time. Do you have any problems with me reinstating that second section? Ryan Vesey Review me!
I see. If it is restored it should probably not include the quote that "you have the right man" or whatever. I am not comfortable with that quote until we know that it actually was his mother. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph was fluf, bu the statements directly by the family with condolences and admitting they were afraid are very relevant. Since they are making those statements voluntarily through the poilce and media WP:BLP should not be used to hide the statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the shooter's family's reactions add much of substance to the article. At least they should be condensed to one sentence, as with the political reactions, and included in the respective section.  Sandstein  19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I repeat my caveat that the "you have the right man" quote should not be included. causa sui (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster Squad

As of the 9am est showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," at least one theater in Washington DC was still showing the Gangster Squad trailer. Has the trailer actually been pulled or has it just taken a bit of time for them to pull it?Pjk645 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page: "At 6 AM, Warner Bros started notifying the theater circuits to pull the offensive Gangster Squad trailer. That is being done all over North America today. Meanwhile, Warner Bros’ marketing department is scrambling to get out its second-generation Gangster Squad trailer already in the works. This new trailer, without the movie theater scene, will be swapped out for the offensive one within a week. Warner Bros says this is now the whole story." -- Zanimum (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it, 6am pacific time was not in time to get the trailer pulled for a 9am est showing. Pjk645 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, about the PT time zone. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of BLP Violations

What is the problem with referring to James Holmes as the alleged suspect? He is the only current suspect and the word alleged means we are not convicting him. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged suspect" would be wrong as a matter of logic. Either "alleged shooter" or "suspect" are correct, as long as they are attributed to a source that verifies that it is the police who are doing the alleging or suspecting.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged suspect" works logically. The newspapers make the allegation (which, though not really debatable, is still an allegation). But yeah, it's needlessly complicated to go that way. "Suspect" seems best for here. Note that "suspect" is much different than "criminal". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged suspect" is either redundant or misleading. Nobody is alleging that he is the suspect. He is the suspect in the shooting. causa sui (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term alleged suspect is incorrect. I was primarily referring to the action of removing his name even though it was not convicting him. I think it would be safe to say "alleged shooter" or "suspect" and still include his name. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading and we shouldn't use it. I was just saying it can be technically correct. Allegations don't need to be unproven or disputed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are walking a tightrope if you use his name in the section that describes the events of the shooting. It will be very easy for you, or someone who edits your prose later, to presume guilt by inadvertently implying or stating that the subject actually did do the deed. It is better to stand back from the electric fence entirely, in my opinion, and use the suspect's name exclusively in the section about the suspect. causa sui (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 more dead

According to this article (Pic 15) 14 are now dead

Unspecific source; can't find that there. We'd need a written article that also explains why the casualty number was again revised.  Sandstein  19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet their breaking news banner says 12.. ABC is also being used to claim this is the biggest mass shooting in American history which is highly questionable. These are not reliable claims at present. We need more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which shooting(s) may have shot more people? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the point was initially added to the article it was simply saying biggest in US history, it didnt actually say that was based on total victims shot or killed. This might be when both dead and injured are counted the biggest, but id like to see more sources saying it rather than just ABC news which is all there was earlier. It has again been added to the intro without clarifying that it is basing it on total victims, it confuses people as there have clearly been bigger shootings in terms of deaths. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear now, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date

The date is incorrect. I'd edit it myself, but the document is semi-protected. Loki149 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean? It happened on July 20, 2012. --Stryn (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Meaning? it happened after midnight.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, someone corrected it. It used to say June. Loki149 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros

Read about marketing change as they are dropping some ad spots where he baddie wheres a mask akin to this ones gas mask

Bloomberg also mentioned an immediate share price drop for Cinemark (aklso need their reaction) and its cited as related to this. It said NY wil increase police at said locations showing this to prevent copycatsLihaas (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tear gas grenades

This news article (from NRK, in Norwegian), says two grenades were used, not one:

Dan Oates also said that police believe the suspect set off two grenades to mislead and confuse people, before he began to shoot. Holmes had a rifle, a pistol, and [other] small arms. Police arrested him outside the theatre after he surrendered himself, standing by his white Honda. Police found an additional weapon in his car, on top of one found in the theatre.

 dalahäst (let's talk!) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a source for this (a TV broadcast from Denver) was added to support this now.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Someone should webarchive them as theyre bound to change/update as a breaking news tpopic.Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would it be acceptable to mention?

That apparently some boutique got in a bit of hot water after claiming that Aurora was a trending topic b/c of their new Kim Kardashian inspired dress called Aurora. I saw this on HuffPo.74.131.99.14 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for the suggestion. causa sui (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introverted

Is it really necessary to mention he is introverted and shy? Besides stigmatizing introverted and shy people, I don't see how it is relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.171.25 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get you. But his personality BEFORE the shooting is encyclopedic, IMO. Curious readers may wonder how he behaved in society before this even happened. Best, ComputerJA (talk)
    No, personal, anecdotal and subjective interpretations about his personality should be removed until he is interviewed by a mental health professional. We aren't doing body language analysis here either. causa sui (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. News media of course tend to include whatever best info they can get a hold of at any given moment, but the quoted statements can safely be considered to have been reported in lieu of more professional assessments yet to follow. These anecdotal accounts may serve a developing news story, but not an encyclopedic account. --213.196.212.93 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman

The see all section links to Charles Whitman. Is this really necessary? It seems like we could link to any other shooter. On a side note, is there a template for "mass murders"? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link. GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect had red-coloured hair and called himself 'the Joker'

Can't provide a quick website, but according to CNN, the man had coloured his hair red and called himself 'the Joker'. 68.39.210.172 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information was removed with this edit. Does the CNN claim say anything to the affect of information given by the Aurora PD? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put that in the article hours ago, with a source. Its breaking news. We have other people who are more equal than others, deleting things. Trackinfo (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article protected?

I see that administrator AzaToth protected the page, and by way of explanation linked to an essay on Meta, the first line of which is "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." No surprise there, then. Any other particular reason why the page is protected? 87.114.154.126 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His joke was about how it was move protected. This page is semi-protected because there are huge risks of BLP violations. You can request material to be added on this talk page as long as you provide a source. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it protected because of something that has happened, or because of something you fear might happen? 87.114.154.126 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who semi protected it actually, and even before it was featured on the main page there was a load of IP vandalism going on. See [18] High volumes of vandalism are especially disruptive on current event articles as they progress. - filelakeshoe 22:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I do hope you keep unprotecting it from time to time, to see how it goes. There are so many eyes on this that any inappropriate edit will last about a nanosecond before it's reverted. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be protected indefinitely, just while it's a high profile news event. - filelakeshoe 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a pity that you're going to leave it protected for the duration of its life as a high-profile event. Problematic edits are quickly reverted on an article like this. If a vandal comes along, protect it for a few hours, then unprotect it would be my suggestion. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When I'm not at work and can police more closely, I will unprotect the article and see what happens. causa sui (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. I hope (and expect) that it won't just be you policing the article. Although high-profile news events attract more vandals than other articles, they are also policed much more closely than other articles. It's the semi-obscure articles where BLP violations can go unnoticed for months which are the real problem. Most of the vandalism to this kind of article is just infantile nonsense which can quickly be reverted. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions?

I've seen that some ITN articles (especially the ones from Syria) include international reactions. I'm neutral for this idea, but there's already have a response from Mexico on the shooting, if anyone is interested. [19] (It's in Spanish, though). I'm also confident other countries have responded. Would International reactions be a good addition to the article? ComputerJA (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every country/offical says the same "We share our condolences with the people of Colorado". The same thing happens with every event and there is no reason to list off the ususal folks all saying the same thing we already know they're going to say. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been wondering why they keep including them in other articles. ComputerJA (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Mexico should even be there, though it seems to (correctly) be gone at the moment. Reactions from anyone who's actually associated with the event should be included. E.g., from the mayor of Aurora, governor of Colorado, from Obama, the DHS, the police, the theater company, etc... Not every random world leader or other figure who sends condolences. Actually, I believe there are statements from the mayor and governor, so those should be included if possible...I'll add them later if nobody's sourced them yet. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I've seen random world leaders' commentaries in articles like Houla massacre, Syria. That's why I asked. I'm cool keeping it the way it is right now and adding your suggestions. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case they might be more notable, since the Syrian situation has been debated in the UN etc. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

In the line "The authorities evacuated five buildings as their tried to figure out how to disarm the explosive materials and clear the area" in the biography section about his home, the word 'their' ought to be 'they'71.243.79.19 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from renaming the infobox without good reason...

I changed the infobox title from "The Dark Knight Massacre" to "2012 Aurora shooting". (Someone had added "Dark Knight Movie Massacre", and that was further edited to what it was before...with no sourcing, and a Google search shows neither term being used at all.) From similar pages, I would say that should remain the infobox title. Some nicknames may pop up as time goes on, and they can be be put in an appropriate section in the box. (What's worse, since there is no common name, leaving that there might result in Wikipedia nicknaming the event!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP dispute over including Columbine and other mass murders

I don't think these should be included in "See Also." We don't know anything about the gunman's motivations/etc, and linking it to Columbine and other massacres suggests it's "related" in some sense. We don't know that, AND this person is only a "suspect" for now, even if we feel strongly that he did it. Maybe we can add to the category list if needed, instead? Though that may also be a WP:BLP issue. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except... they are related. Two of largest mass-shootings in US History, both occurred in Colorado. Sounds related to me. --IShadowed 23:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me it sounds more like a coincidence, I agree with the OP, the shootings aren't related in any way other than general location. BulbaThor (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think this is a key point here. They both just coincidentally happened in Colorado, many years apart. There's no link other than that. If that's to be included, you need to search for other nearby killings (even just outside Colorado), killings at theaters (should Lincoln's assassination be a see also?), other incidents at that movie chain...etc, etc. I don't see how you can establish any relevant link other than location. Now, if there is some other article on a mass killing at a theater...that would certainly merit a see also. Or anything like that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda ironic that in the same breath as you raise a BLP concern, you declare you "know he did it". 87.114.154.126 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because this is a talk page, not the article itself. Other editors are editing with the "he did it" mindset as well. I was primarily trying to address folks who are thinking that, to note that it's not relevant since he's a suspect...as I pointed out as well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth having a browse of the BLP policy if you think it makes a difference that this is a talk page, or what others are thinking. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I shouldn't mention "even if we basically know he did it" even on a talk page under WP:BLP. But suggesting that I not point out motivations that others may be editing on is just silly. I replaced that bit with "feel strongly." But your "irony" here suggests that my view that he likely did it is affecting my editing of the article itself—I don't think it is, nor has anyone pointed out that being the case. Hell, I'm arguing against prematurely convicting him here, even if I think he did it. My personal views expressed on the talk page don't necessarily correspond at all with trying to achieve neutrality in the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that your neutrality is compromised by your views. I was simply pointing out that you were in violation of the BLP policy. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd only suggest you point me (or whomever) to WP:BLP or whatever policy sooner, noting the violation. I didn't understand what you were getting at at first, until you actually suggested I read BLP. (Which I did, and realized I was indeed violating it myself on the talk page. I suppose your irony is restored! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cool exchange by the two of you. Just noting. --213.196.212.93 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The only connection between Columbine High School and the movie theater is that they're 17 miles apart. That's it. Source. Erick (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to those articles has nothing to do with the perpetrator or his motivations, but everything with the fact that this is rampage killing and is therefore linked to the whole topic of rampage killings. So why not link to a list, that helps putting this case into perspective? And the connection between this shooting and Columbine has been made by the media numero us times. So, as long as there's no reference to it in the text, we should at least link to it in the 'See also'-section. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
He's not a "rampage killer", though. You cannot link to a "list of rampage killers." He is a SUSPECT in a rampage killing, whether or not we "feel" we know he did it. And Columbine just happens to be nearby...if it was just in the past few years, or whatever, I'd say it's more appropriate. A list of rampage killings or mass murders (not murderers), if there is one, might be appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. The problem is the fact that it's a list of rampage killers, not a list of rampage killings. Oh well, if it makes that much of a difference, even though the connection between the suspect and the deed would remain just as strongly in the latter, so be it. But, the media is still referring quite a bit to Columbine in this case, the connection has been made frequently by secondary sources, as I have shown above, so I really think we should at least put a link to it somewhere. And the fact that 'it just happens to be nearby' is actually not an argument against doing so. There are many disaster-articles that link to other, similar disasters with no other connection than locality, and to be honest, at least I find them quite useful. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
(edit conflict) While it does seem like a tiny technical distinction, I think it IS important, as far as not convicting the guy on Wikipedia. "List of spree killers" can be added if he's convicted. It was a mass killing, with a suspect who is still a suspect. It's probably best not to even include a list of killings, I suppose, since it's technically pretty close. I wouldn't have any problem with mentioning Columbine in the article, just to note that the incident has been compared to the Columbine shooting due to the proximity and number of victims, etc. But I don't think it belongs in a "See also" section with zero context. If you can find a good place to stick an appropriate reference to Columbine in the article itself (that won't provoke the wrath of whomever was reverting you before I did), go for it... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could write up a concise section summarizing the overall news reporting regarding the incident. Mentioning that many news reports made mention of Columbine would be suitable info for such a section. Just an idea. --213.196.212.93 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem like an appropriate place to report this, but I'm not sure the article is lengthy enough to merit such a section. Perhaps mention it in the reactions section? "The media have compared the shooting to the Columbine incident," or whatnot. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply added a (sourced) note in the lead that it was the deadliest mass shooting in Colorado since the Columbine massacre. Hope that's ok. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Fine by me, for one. --213.196.212.93 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that belongs in the lead (unless it's fleshed out FAR more), though I'm not going to revert it and violate 3RR myself, as you just did. (I believe the correct action is to revert your own edit, per 3RR policy. Other editors and admins can feel free to take over.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following the editing history, so I can't speak to 3RR issues, but imho the Colorado "connection" is a plausible one which merits a mention, so why not leave it in the lead for now? The statement as is doesn't imply any further connection or similarity beyond location, and at least it reflects all the sources making mention of Columbine probably for that same reason (proximity rather than any other qualities). --213.196.212.93 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think the current edit is okay, but misplaced, but I'm more annoyed with the editor exempting himself from the 3RR policy. (And not just me, at least 2 other editors reverted him before...I reverted him twice, the second time to try to get him to discuss on the talk page before making further changes.) Sticking it in the lead is a bit over the top, unless the lead is fleshed out further, or I probably wouldn't care. Sticking it in the lead while violating 3RR as if to flaunt doing so is silly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I violate the 3RR rule? I hope not, since I have only reverted each edit once, before altering it to reflect the complaints made - first by leaving out the List of rampage killers, then by incorporating the note about Columbine without indicating any connection between the two shootings. And why should the fact that it was the deadliest mass shooting in Colorado since Columbine belong less in the lead than the fact that it's the largest mass shooting in US history? (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. I counted my own reversion of another editor in my own count of 3; you have at least 4, and I think one from earlier from the 3rd editor who warned you on your talk page. Please read WP:3RR and also your talk page messages, if you haven't. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you believe me when I say that they were intended as good faith edits, as I didn't disregard the complaints made, but tried to change my edits accordingly. As you can see in the edit history, User:Causa sui, by his edit summary, seemed to take offence only at the addition of the List of rampage killers, so I left it out after one revert. Apparently that wasn't ok either, as you undid that edit again, I reverted, citing my reasons, before you reverted one more time, refering to the talk-page. Only then I saw that you had opened a discussion and I came here immediately. So practically it was more like revert - correct - revert - talk - correct. But if there are still complaints, I'll refrain from adding the information in question again, if it is removed, as I don't think such a trifle is worth so much time. Maybe this is less controversial, as it has been added to the See also-section of the Fort Hood massacre, whose perpetrator is also not yet convicted.
(edit conflict)I never suggested or assumed they weren't good-faith edits, or I'd be complaining on the admin noticeboard and not here. :) Again, I do suggest you revert your last edit regarding Columbine as to undo that 3RR violation, though I'm not going to get into that any further. List of massacres in the United States#Colorado seems better, though the article notes a neutrality issue and no citations, but I'd say that makes it a toss-up. (Of course, including that and improving the linked article is even better!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "revert" over at List of rampage killers, it wasn't actually meant as a revert, but as a fix. As you can see, if you bother, User:Ryan Vesey removed the entire entry about the Aurora shooting, which was then re-added by User:Fishbert, though Fishbert's edits showed a few stylistic differences to all the other entries and missed Holmes' date of birth, so I fixed that, by simply copy-pasting my old edit, not realizing, that an 'alleged' had been added behind Holmes' name. It got lost in my edit, Ryan reverted and left this note at my talk page, before Fishbert reverted again, re-adding the lost 'alleged'. In all probability, there were only good intentions from all sides. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
My apologies, I did include that in the count. If you do read the 3RR rules...it's basically any revert on the same page, including edits related to the revert (e.g. re-adding the Columbine info to the lead, even though it wasn't the exact same edit.) So you reverted the first editor, then reverted me twice (my second revert was to try to steer you to the talk page...), then reverted again by re-adding the material. Sorry if that wasn't unclear, as I was just confused by someone else's (correct) WP:BLP assertion against me above... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I should be, and probably am, familiar enough with the 3RR rule after four years of editing Wikipedia, so I should not get carried away by something so trivial anymore. But the first revert seemed too much like a "Don't-like-one-thing-undo-everything"-revert. It just happens too often that people, out of convenience, undo an entire edit, because they don't agree with a part of it. And reverts can accumulate pretty fast, if different people dislike different parts of your edit. Overall, I don't think 3RR should be enforced too strictly, as long as the editor doesn't stubbornly resist to discuss the matter. After all, it can happen to the best of us that the outrage of a horribly unjust and excruciatingly irrational revert overwhelms your mind and sweeps away your hard acquired countenance. Anyway, happy editing and thanks for all the fish. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I think you misconstrue my reply as us coming to a consensus on this. Rather, I was apologizing for counting your other edit in there as part of edit-warring, and assumed you had warred with 2 other editors on the same article (not just me and another editor.) You still violated 3RR either way; it applies to the ENTIRE article, and particularly to the same material (whether or not it's in "see also" or is in the lead or is just semi-related.) I also think it should be a looser policy, but again, I'm not going to violate it myself to undo YOUR violation, since that's a violation in itself. Thus, I'm disengaging from the discussion as you chose to both violate 3RR *AND* not undo your 3RR violation after the fact (since that's the guideline if you do violate 3RR accidentally), even if you misunderstood 3RR beforehand. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little bit bureaucratic to me to remove something that a majority is actually in favour of having included (at least somewhere, the count is 4 or 5 to 2 in this thread, according to my humble counting), but if it makes people happy to have it this way, let's ignore the shortcut and walk the path that is obstructed with countless formalities. (Lord Gøn (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Although the close proximity of the two events is (presumably) pure coincidence, it means that they affected the same community. That's good enough reason for a mention of Columbine to be appropriate for the article. Formerip (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this locked?

This isn't really a very huge event, but some poeple thought that many would be upset about the batman movie, could we please make this open to editors who might want to contribute some information if accurate? I will also ask before getting permission to, thanks.184.98.114.65 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators usually have pretty good reasons to semiprotect articles. Use the {{editsemiprotected}} template to suggest additions and changes here on the talk page. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nolan's reaction

Source Would his statement be notable for the reaction section? Erick (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no myself, because we already have a statement from Warner Bros. If we didn't have any statement connected to the movie, it might be, but I think the Warner Bros statement is sufficient. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It doesn't add substantially to the Warner Bros. statement, which in turn can be considered as having been made on behalf of the corporation as well as the movie's cast and crew, including Nolan. --213.196.212.93 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotes about his personality

I've been involved in some back and forth over this bit:

Acquaintances described Holmes as a generally pleasant person and as a "really smart" student who showed no signs of violence.[45] He was also described as an introverted and shy person, and as strongly involved in his local church.[45]

I don't see any point in including the subjective anecdotal opinions of "acquaintances". We should be reserving descriptions of his personality to trained and qualified mental health professionals after they have interviewed him. causa sui (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this one...however, it seems many of these descriptions are high school recollections, reading the linked ref. I'd remove it on WP:BLP grounds for that alone; accounts that CAN be shown to be contemporary are probably okay, I think. The only dated "contemporary" account in the given ref seems to be from a maintenance worker who remembers him as "quiet", which doesn't seem all that relevant. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with causa sui here. These "facts" are just anonymous people's judgments. No real educational value. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates, timeline, and theater map

Reuters and CNN are updating rapidly, and have several details the article lacks, some of which seem very important but I'm unwilling to excerpt because I think editors should read both of those stories in full. Of particular interest may be this CNN timeline and theater map. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the bit about the fact the guns were legally purchased is certainly notable and needs adding, but many bits of valid info in those article yes.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very well annotated aerial view of the neighborhood at this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/shooting-movie-theater-denver/56351098/1 "Motive sought in deadly shooting rampage at Colorado theater" The caption references the AP and Denver Post as a source, apparently, for the image. It may be worthwhile citing somehow in this Wikipedia article.User:Ssc (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Terrorism

If the FBI said they do not believe this was an act of terrorism, why is this article under WikiProject Terrorism? The definition of terrorism is very narrow —it was given earlier in the talk page—. Just a thought. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed WikiProject Death, which is even less pertinent, to WikiProject Terrorism, which explicitly includes acts by individuals. The scope at WP:TERROR may be different than the FBI's definition. I wouldn't object to removal, but I predict it will be replaced if it is removed. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the quote from the WikiProject Terrorism page:
  • "While we have to date limited ourselves to acts of violence against civilians by Violent non-state actors ("VNSAs") for political gain, users are encouraged to add their own new focus. It is impossible to fully separate "terrorism" from "counter-terrorism", as the methods used are often similar. One should use common sense in labeling an attack on unarmed civilians at the Munich Olympics as "an act of terrorism", while an attack against an Iraqi military base might be better suited to the Military history Wikiproject."
Per this quiote, it seems the scope of the project doesnt include this incident, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the quote specifically puts this into WikiProject Terrosim. It is an attack against unarmed civilians. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI is saying this is not an act of terrorism, this was a "lone wolf". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism is anything that causes terror. It is oftentimes used as coercion, but doesn't have to be. As of right now, we don't know if this act was committed for some reason. At the same time, the FBI hasn't labeled it as terrorism yet so we can't label it as terrorism in the article. We can label it as terrorism for behind the scenes work. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

difficulty finding a job? says who?

This is a well sourced article but the statement "Holmes had difficulty finding a job after obtaining his master's degree." is unsourced. Can someone source it or remove it? --76.237.227.4 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneI removed it entirely. It wasn't in the source cited, and the only ref I found Googling it was a neighbor saying it. Clarified the statement about him dropping out too, as it seemed unclear as to whether he was forced to or not (and dropping out is contrary to being expelled...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that quotes his San Diego neighbor saying the only job he could get after getting his degree in neuroscience was at McDonalds. Its not exactly a point admissible in court, the original posting of "master's degree" was inaccurate but its a reasonable source and a logical assumption beyond that. Trackinfo (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a 16-year-old neighbor suggesting that. Honestly, that's not a very good article, so I wouldn't trust the poor source interviews there without additional facts. And just noting that "he could only get a job at McDonald's" doesn't actually SAY anything...other than that he might have been able to get hired at McDonald's if he wanted to, but not whether or not he even worked there. Making assumptions past that isn't our job, nor does it seem relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman film template

I dont think the Batman film template should have this article as a "related articles" link, and thus i dont think the template should be placed here. If we are not going to list actors on navbox templates, surely this is even more tangential.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have removed it. Having it there suggests that this incident was part of the film series itself. Why does anyone exploring the incident need a box full of links to other stuff related to the films? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Eagan Holmes article

I feel that there are more than enough reliable sources t ohave this person pass the WP:GNG guidelines, I propose an article be made o nthe suspect, a mugshot is also around on the news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article about the suspect before he is formally convicted of a crime violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. That article SHOULD NOT exist. Period. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, can an administrator speed up the deletion on James Holmes (Aurora Shooting)? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt make sense to me. Lets look forward a year. hes not convicted yet, and we still dont have an article? My understanding of blp is we simply cannot make an unsourced statement about a living person, either in an article on the person, or an article which references them, as this does. We can have an article about a suspect in a crime, as long as the article doesnt give the impression that WE KNOW something about them thats not known outside these pages (this would include categorizing the person as a killer, etc). the relevant policy is notability, per Knowledgekid. I think we know perfectly well that we will have an article about him eventually. I would be inclined to wait until we know a bit more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. The rules of BLP, firstly, say that no one is notable for one event. Period. Secondly, no one is notable for a crime they have not been proven guilty of in the court of law. Read the links I gave above. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holmes has not been convicted, therefore he has not committed a well-known crime so, for now, he is not notable. There is no mugshot doing the rounds yet. The Aurora police chief stated explicitly at midday today that the booking photograph would not be released today. The picture of Holmes in the media shows no Joker-red hair and the suspect is not shown wearing a booking number around his neck. — O'Dea (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These discussions are sprouting every time there is a major mass shooting, and so far it has always ended in a defeat of those arguing in favour of WP:BLP1E and against an article about the shooter. There should be examples at the talk-pages of Jared Lee Loughner, Nidal Malik Hasan, Anders Behring Breivik, and Robert Bales, or the respective talk-pages of the articles about their crimes. I think it's about time that folks here on Wikipedia reach a definite decision on how to handle cases like this, because it's getting really annoying to have the same discussion over and over again. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Then they're against policy. Quite frankly, WP:BLP1E isn't my problem with this, WP:BLPCRIME is. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles that have the individuals are better termed as content forks than simply separate articles. These articles tend to get pretty long and eventually there is just too much information for one article. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are against policy, then it was the community that has voted numerous times against it. There have been many discussions about this and in all of those cases the community has reached the decision that neither WP:BLP1E, nor WP:BLPCRIME actually bites here. I think policy should reflect community consensus, and so far consesus has always been that high profile mass murderers, convicted or not, should get their own articles eventually, because in the end there will be simply too much information about them to include it all in the article about the crime. Consensus is what policies should be based on, so it's the policy that is in severe need of a revision, and not the other way round. (Lord Gøn (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I broght this up because sooner or later the question is going to be "To make or not to make" although not convicted this person is getting alot of media attention and more is being uncovered about him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't resolve bad refs

Hi (if that is appropriate considering the tragedy of this event),

Based on the c. 19:00 20 July news conference: Total casualties are 70 (exactly): 12 dead; 58 wounded. He did, indeed, dye his hair red or orange, and say to the police he was the Joker.

References:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-police-weeks-of-planning-went-into-shootings-that-killed-12-injured-scores-at-batman-screening-in-colorado?lite&__utma=14933801.440235379.1342834949.1342834949.1342834949.1&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1342834949&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342834949.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29%7Cutmccn=%28direct%29%7Cutmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=14933801.%7C8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=72595859

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I can't make the refs work, possibly because of simultaneous edits. I. Give. Up. !. ;)

KUSA: http://www.9news.com/video/player_live_2.aspx ff, seems to be a reliable source.

Note on timing: it appears (not Original Research [OR], but obvious) that he started shooting before his ____ [I forget genre] music ended at his apartment. So (OR?) he was trying for a two-fer, demolishing his apt. building and the theater. Of course, this will depend on the result of the apt. disarming. I have my own judgements about it.

IAC, thanks to those who are more adept editors and tighter in with WikiP than I!

PS: R.I.P. PPS: "difficulty finding a job? says who?" KUSA for one. (from memory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna CA (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 July 2012

You have a second reference )"Holmes" in the sentence that the suspect bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Below that, in a subsequent paragraph, the suspect is fully identified with first reference style. So you need to fix the "Holmes" in the ammunition paragraph.

68.52.144.183 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category: White People

I strongly suggest that we add Category: White People to the categories list for encyclopedic reasons. Can someone add this promptly124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, how does a nonexistent category exactly apply for encyclopedic reasons? ZappaOMati 04:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously because this massacre was carried out by a white person... I'm sure we would have the African American category attached to every single meaningless pety crime committed by an African American... well I thought that was obvious but appareantly not to you... And on it not existing, this is pretty bad for an encyclopedia of Wikipedias proportions, let's say we add this category and start applying it to all white people who have committed crimes?124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ NBC News. "'Mass chaos' as 12 shot dead at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Aurora, Colorado". News Article. msn.com. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
  2. ^ Bloomberg, Mayor Michael. "Mayor Bloomberg Discusses Shooting in Aurora, Colorado". YouTube Video. YouTube. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
  3. ^ "Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, Reacts To Colorado Shooting". Web News Article. Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting&oldid=503390139"